Reply to Topic
I will see it this week. Long time since I've had a chance to go to a movie! It just opened here in Stockholm.
Arrival (2016)
having read this---
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/a...huge-spoilers#
i finally understand the movie now. but dont read it till you have seen the movie first . reading it will spoil the fun for you .
this was the most 'bouncer' movie i saw ever....we indians have this concept of 'bouncer' for something that we don't fully understand---it comes from the game of cricket . when a ball is bowled too high by the bowler and the batsman cannot hit it with his bat because it goes above the head then it is called 'bouncer' . the movie at least partly went above my head like a 'bouncer' .
but after reading the link i can make sense of it and understand it's brilliance . but did others in the theatre understand it ? judging from their reaction they didnt...that raises the question as to whether the movie was too hyperintellectual for it's own good ; by 'good' i mean box office performance . if many in the audience do not fully understand the movie then it might affect it on the box office . of course , i sincerely hope that the audience is more intelligent than i am and understands it better than i did .
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/a...huge-spoilers#
i finally understand the movie now. but dont read it till you have seen the movie first . reading it will spoil the fun for you .
this was the most 'bouncer' movie i saw ever....we indians have this concept of 'bouncer' for something that we don't fully understand---it comes from the game of cricket . when a ball is bowled too high by the bowler and the batsman cannot hit it with his bat because it goes above the head then it is called 'bouncer' . the movie at least partly went above my head like a 'bouncer' .
but after reading the link i can make sense of it and understand it's brilliance . but did others in the theatre understand it ? judging from their reaction they didnt...that raises the question as to whether the movie was too hyperintellectual for it's own good ; by 'good' i mean box office performance . if many in the audience do not fully understand the movie then it might affect it on the box office . of course , i sincerely hope that the audience is more intelligent than i am and understands it better than i did .
I'm surprised that I didn't like Arrival. Okay, I liked the concept of language and time. And I liked the first third of the film, although I thought at times I was watching Mallick and "Tree of Life" with all the huge landscapes and nature behind super closeups on the actors and the weaving in and out of the timeline. (disclaimer: I generally love Mallick, but not imitators.)
But it had a host of problems. Amy Adams isn't good enough to carry the film. Now she had to convey so much with the plethora of way too many closeups, most with no opposing actors to react off. But I just never got to the point where I was in there with her, rooting for her.
Then there's the pacing of the whole middle of the film. So much time with so little happening. By the third visit with the aliens I was bored. It didn't need to be this slow, a leaden pace is not equal to important things happening.
The last fifteen minutes tried to tie up so much of what had happened and what it meant, and yeah, I followed all of it, and there were some good moments and ideas but not enough to justify the elephantine pacing of the last hour.
In the end, I was disappointed. And surprised I didn't like it.
But it had a host of problems. Amy Adams isn't good enough to carry the film. Now she had to convey so much with the plethora of way too many closeups, most with no opposing actors to react off. But I just never got to the point where I was in there with her, rooting for her.
Then there's the pacing of the whole middle of the film. So much time with so little happening. By the third visit with the aliens I was bored. It didn't need to be this slow, a leaden pace is not equal to important things happening.
The last fifteen minutes tried to tie up so much of what had happened and what it meant, and yeah, I followed all of it, and there were some good moments and ideas but not enough to justify the elephantine pacing of the last hour.
In the end, I was disappointed. And surprised I didn't like it.
Just got back from the theatre. I thought the second act was a little bumpy, but overall it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
__________________
[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
A sci-fi film that has nothing to do with sci-fi?
No.... Just no. Definitely reminds me of a low budget 2001 a space odyssey. Aside from that, too many close ups.
X
User Lists
Really loved this movie.
Had a long conversation about possible different interpretations/questions. None seemed to fit perfectly (there'd always be one thing that seemed to contradict it, or at least not gel completely) but I am totally alright with that.
Bah, there's more, and I know a lot of that is probably just word vomit but I want to just get a lot out of my head before I go to bed and forget much of it.
But it's a really confusing movie that you have to have kind of enjoy meandering through a fuzzy logic to love. So not a movie for everyone, and I don't mean that in a "if you don't like it then you just don't get it" way but rather "you probably need to enjoy spinning a lot of vague ideas in your head and interpreting them" kind of way.
Had a long conversation about possible different interpretations/questions. None seemed to fit perfectly (there'd always be one thing that seemed to contradict it, or at least not gel completely) but I am totally alright with that.
WARNING: "Arrival Interpretations/Plot" spoilers below
There's more than I have time to write down before I need to go to bed, so I'm going to list off some thoughts:
-The most useful metaphor for the conversations I had about the movie was a hypothetical movie that showed a digital clock showing one second at a time up to a minute. This helped clarify the differences between whether people thought that there were experiences out of order or memories from the future (which is a big divide on how you'd end up interpreting it), and whether that over wrote the current timeline. For example, if the movie shows how Louise actually experiences her timeline with regards to her life up to her daughter's death, then the clock analogy would look something like, 40, 45, 50, 55, 57, 59, 60, 20, 21, 22, 23, 55, 24, 25, 59, etc. Likewise, it helped clarify discussions about whether time passed in the the linear-ish normal timeline during the visions/experiences, e.g. whether or not it more closely resembles 31, 32, 59, 34 or 31, 32, 59, 33.
-Unsure if story is "prime timeline", where Louise's control of her ability to have out of timeline experiences/memories grows over the course of the movie timeline, or if no prime timeline exists and she "chooses" or otherwise must experience lack of knowledge again and again. Similar to conversations around whether she gets to live each moment more than once and is in an out of order cycle forever, or if she'll end up living her life out of order and then die (e.g. when she sees all numbers 1-60 she's "used up" her life).
-If I had to choose one interpretation, I'd say the structure of Arrival resembles how someone might describe their life to something that didn't care about/understand linear time. She starts with what's most important to her first, her daughter, and the entire movie is actually describing her and how she came to be (which after the fact makes sense with the original short story being called Story of Your Life, which I'm glad they went with the misdirect instead).
-Lot of ethical issues related to Louise hiding/not being able to correctly convey Hannah's terminal and unavoidable illness to Ian. Lets say 95% of Louise's life with Hannah is overwhelmingly joyful, this is a good deal for Louise because she'll be able to jump around and most of the experience will be fine. To Ian, it's an inevitable "spoiler" that is looming over his relationship to his daughter. There's an asymmetry in both the knowledge going into the pregnancy AND the experience of losing the daughter. But then that also brings up whether life is joyful if you know it'll end and yadda yadda yadda. I just enjoyed how these differences said less about the actual individual personalities/values formed by the content of their experiences and more about how the differences in their structures of perception shape the differences (which is related to how language itself can drastically shape perceptions, and that structural difference can account for a much of the differences between two people, even if their actual content of their experiences is similar).
-Definitely thought the first part of the movie was just a quick way to make a sympathetic character, and at first I appreciated that they just made it short.
-Scene where Louise asks Ian if you knew your life in advance, what would you do had a strong Eternal Recurrence vibe to me.
There's more than I have time to write down before I need to go to bed, so I'm going to list off some thoughts:
-The most useful metaphor for the conversations I had about the movie was a hypothetical movie that showed a digital clock showing one second at a time up to a minute. This helped clarify the differences between whether people thought that there were experiences out of order or memories from the future (which is a big divide on how you'd end up interpreting it), and whether that over wrote the current timeline. For example, if the movie shows how Louise actually experiences her timeline with regards to her life up to her daughter's death, then the clock analogy would look something like, 40, 45, 50, 55, 57, 59, 60, 20, 21, 22, 23, 55, 24, 25, 59, etc. Likewise, it helped clarify discussions about whether time passed in the the linear-ish normal timeline during the visions/experiences, e.g. whether or not it more closely resembles 31, 32, 59, 34 or 31, 32, 59, 33.
-Unsure if story is "prime timeline", where Louise's control of her ability to have out of timeline experiences/memories grows over the course of the movie timeline, or if no prime timeline exists and she "chooses" or otherwise must experience lack of knowledge again and again. Similar to conversations around whether she gets to live each moment more than once and is in an out of order cycle forever, or if she'll end up living her life out of order and then die (e.g. when she sees all numbers 1-60 she's "used up" her life).
-If I had to choose one interpretation, I'd say the structure of Arrival resembles how someone might describe their life to something that didn't care about/understand linear time. She starts with what's most important to her first, her daughter, and the entire movie is actually describing her and how she came to be (which after the fact makes sense with the original short story being called Story of Your Life, which I'm glad they went with the misdirect instead).
-Lot of ethical issues related to Louise hiding/not being able to correctly convey Hannah's terminal and unavoidable illness to Ian. Lets say 95% of Louise's life with Hannah is overwhelmingly joyful, this is a good deal for Louise because she'll be able to jump around and most of the experience will be fine. To Ian, it's an inevitable "spoiler" that is looming over his relationship to his daughter. There's an asymmetry in both the knowledge going into the pregnancy AND the experience of losing the daughter. But then that also brings up whether life is joyful if you know it'll end and yadda yadda yadda. I just enjoyed how these differences said less about the actual individual personalities/values formed by the content of their experiences and more about how the differences in their structures of perception shape the differences (which is related to how language itself can drastically shape perceptions, and that structural difference can account for a much of the differences between two people, even if their actual content of their experiences is similar).
-Definitely thought the first part of the movie was just a quick way to make a sympathetic character, and at first I appreciated that they just made it short.
-Scene where Louise asks Ian if you knew your life in advance, what would you do had a strong Eternal Recurrence vibe to me.
Bah, there's more, and I know a lot of that is probably just word vomit but I want to just get a lot out of my head before I go to bed and forget much of it.
But it's a really confusing movie that you have to have kind of enjoy meandering through a fuzzy logic to love. So not a movie for everyone, and I don't mean that in a "if you don't like it then you just don't get it" way but rather "you probably need to enjoy spinning a lot of vague ideas in your head and interpreting them" kind of way.
Last edited by Slappydavis; 02-15-17 at 04:20 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
This film seems to divide opinion more than most. Some of the people I know think it is a "masterpiece", "revolutionary" and others think it is "nonsensical" and "boring".
I find myself somewhere in the middle.
It was a good film, with a decent story, good acting,good effects and was visually striking.
I thought it was ok.
It reminded me a bit of a kid at school who thought he was more intelligent than he was. He was a nice kid, and some people were impressed with his big words, yet others thought he was simply blagging.
Didn't love it, didn't hate it. My opinion may change when I re watch it, but I am not sure.
I find myself somewhere in the middle.
It was a good film, with a decent story, good acting,good effects and was visually striking.
I thought it was ok.
It reminded me a bit of a kid at school who thought he was more intelligent than he was. He was a nice kid, and some people were impressed with his big words, yet others thought he was simply blagging.
Didn't love it, didn't hate it. My opinion may change when I re watch it, but I am not sure.
__________________
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me" (Frank Costello)
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me" (Frank Costello)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
She is able to experience time like we would a language. So can see everything past before and future. The concept is awe inspiring.
I took it as a little nod to the frustration of why there is no peace on this planet too.
I took it as a little nod to the frustration of why there is no peace on this planet too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I took it as a little nod to the frustration of why there is no peace on this planet too.
My list formatting is making the spoiler command wonky, so SPOILERS/ILLEGIBLE NAVEL GAZING BELOW.
If you told me, Hollywood movie has aliens that come to teach humans the secret to world peace, I’d immediately assume that it’d be a horrible preachy disaster. But actually the movie is thoughtful in this regard (partially because the “answer” includes both clarifying some underlying issues, and the “direct answer” is something sadly impossible).
To me, the movie generally sets up this model (I’m simplifying and interpreting here, so I could be wrong in several ways):
The world is a positive sum game
1) The movie doesn’t spend a ton of time here (as far as I could tell), but as far as unsupported assumptions go, this is a pretty acceptable one (as far as trade existing and being commonly understood as a “good thing).
1a) One direct reference is when Hannah asks her mom about how to describe a situation where both parties benefit from cooperation, and Louise eventually answers “Non-Zero Sum Games” (which I wish they would have just said positive sum game, because a negative sum game is also a non zero sum game too).
2) We are blocked from getting to the largest mutual payouts because of a lack of trust between the parties within said game.
2a) Trust is shown to be a relatively fragile thing within the movie, as soon as some countries stop cooperating (and of course it’s Russia and China first
, I wish they had tossed one other country into that mix at least) all of the nations back out and lose out on sharing information.3) With total knowledge and assured outcomes, we could achieve those largest mutual payouts.
3a) At this point, “risk” no longer exists. Without risk, this sort of total knowledge naturally flows to cooperation (if indeed positive sum). And it’s not in a, let’s do it because it’s nice and the right thing to do, but even out of pure self interest.
3b) This is the part that the alien language provides humanity.
And I like that it’s not a total omniscience, you still only know what your life experiences are, even if you experience your whole life simultaneously.I think “frustration” is a good word for the impediments to world peace (as claimed by the movie), because there’s a little bit of, we don’t even need to know everything! If only we could just know the rest of OUR lives we’d start cooperating more. If you don’t have to accept linear time as a given, then it feels frustrating that many problems between people hinge upon them not having a given amount of trust for each other because they’re worried about reciprocation.
Last edited by Slappydavis; 02-17-17 at 01:46 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I loved the movie! One of few movies that made me get to a movie theater this year. It's refreshing when an alien movie doesn't become a showreel of special effects or crazy gore! I don't mind any of that, but it is just a pleasant surprise when it is not your standard "alien" movie.
__________________
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy
I was fairly disappointed with the movie. The way it tackled some issues [such as public reaction and part of the international politics] was a bit underwhelming [although what I really mean is that I found it not that well exposed]
I previously gave the example of 2010 for the politics thing, which - IMHO - was done flawlessly and elegantly.
The premise of the movie is interesting, but there are a few things that don't make much sense from a practical point of view [specially given that the aliens are pretty smart].
I previously gave the example of 2010 for the politics thing, which - IMHO - was done flawlessly and elegantly.
The premise of the movie is interesting, but there are a few things that don't make much sense from a practical point of view [specially given that the aliens are pretty smart].
__________________
You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Just got back from seeing this. Wow, had so much promise, then it face planted into cheesy schmaltz. I put it up there with Interstellar. Needed a Matt McC crying scene to finish it off.
I don't know why they made such dump film.
__________________
You are vile.
I saw it the other day. I think I have to watch it with a different approach, just like I made mistake approaching it as a regular scifi movie and ended up with lots of unanswered questions (don't want to get into spoilers). Now I want to re-watch with a different hermeneutical approach mostly emphasizing the language as a tool of communication and relationships.
Perhaps the only thing that was bothering me was casting Jeremy Renner in the role of Ian. Sorry I just don't see him as a physicist, since I watched The Town. I guess I have to get used to him in different characters.
Perhaps the only thing that was bothering me was casting Jeremy Renner in the role of Ian. Sorry I just don't see him as a physicist, since I watched The Town. I guess I have to get used to him in different characters.
__________________
You can call it the art of fighting without fighting.
You can call it the art of fighting without fighting.
X
Favorite Movies
|
|